dancingalone
Grandmaster
Hmm, simple but fascinating. If anyone can share similar KKW poomsae ideas, I'd love to read them.
Korean forms and applications
- Thread starter Kong Soo Do
- Start date
- Status
Hmm, simple but fascinating. If anyone can share similar KKW poomsae ideas, I'd love to read them.
dancingalone
Grandmaster
Here is one of the surface level applications from Bassai Dai (Pal Sek De).
[yt]IETjq3Jf-JQ[/yt]
The scoop block from 14-15 seconds in of the video is frequently interpreted as trapping the leg off kick and then using the limb to dump the attacker to the ground.
[yt]IETjq3Jf-JQ[/yt]
The scoop block from 14-15 seconds in of the video is frequently interpreted as trapping the leg off kick and then using the limb to dump the attacker to the ground.
OP
OP
puunui said:
Kata and forms contain specific movement sequences for a reason. Within these specific movement sequences we find the applications, be they b-p-k in nature or more advanced such as locks, throws etc. The movement sequences have no need of being changed in-and-of-themselves, otherwise we've changed the meaning of the movement sequence completely. Replacing a middle punch with the rear hand with a back leg roundhouse kick is a completely different movement sequence and is not represented by the form. While it very well may have excellent application in sparring or an altercation, it isn't what is represented in that portion of the form. In essence, you have stretched the form beyond recognition during this particular portion. Don't take this as an jab at you Glenn, I'm telling you clearly that it isn't right up front. What you have described above isn't an application from the form you've mentioned at that particular movement sequence.
One of the possible applications mentioned for this form, at this particular movement sequence was the hammer fist. This application does not alter the actual movements of the form at the portion discussed. It does not replace this or that movement in favor of another. Another application was a forearm strike (also referred to a half-spear), off-balancing movement and strike using the bottom forearm of the right arm. Again, this application fits the actual movements of the form, at this particular sequence. Nothing has had to be substituted or replaced.
Again, just to be clear, no jab and no disrespect intended. But we all need to be very careful about altering a form from what the creator of the form presented. We can't replace whole sections in place of something else and say it is an application of the form in question. We need to use what is contained in the form itself.
Respectfully submitted.
That's Grandmaster HWANG, In-Sik, 8th Dan. He was and might still be Plural Professor at Anyang Technical College in Korea, and chairman of the Education Committee at the Kukkiwon.
Last edited:
We are not talking about "kata" but rather "korean forms and applications". So any statement regarding kata does not apply here.
Locks and throws are not "more advanced" than striking.
That might be if we were applying "kata" rules that you and your friends have set up, but that doesn't apply to kukki taekwondo or its forms. Overriding your narrow "kata" perspective is the principle which runs through both taekwondo and hapkido, which is, we do with our feet what others do with their hands. If you have actually practiced these arts, then you would understand this principle. The fact that you do not understand again underlines your lack of experience with the korean martial arts in general and taekwondo in particular. This is over and above the fact that you started this thread about applications in "Korean forms" that we teach or have learned, and you fail to give your own example, even when asked. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you cannot answer because you have not learned any "Korean forms" and therefore cannot present any applications.
Yes it is. See above.
There you go again, trying to add in your "kata" pieces from your non korean jigsaw puzzle to a discussion regarding "Korean forms". The forms I am discussing, my direct teacher was the "creator" and I can do what I want with them, especially since he was one of the korean martial arts teachers who told me of the principle running through taekwondo where we do with our feet what others do with their hands. If you wish to discuss applications using your "kata" rules, then perhaps the korean martial arts forum is not for you.. But if you wish to discuss "Korean forms" you would be better served to adopt korean martial arts principles, rather than some "kata" rules from someplace else.
There are others, but that is the main distinguishing characteristic between korean martial arts and others, that we do with our feet what others do with their hands.
The hapkido roundhouse kick for example, was developed from the knife hand strike to the neck. But instead of our hands, hapkido utilizes the bone directly below the ankle, with the toes pointed. This is similar to the commonly referred "instep roundhouse", but we do not strike with the instep. We would if the knife hand strike was done with the back of the hand, but it isn't. Also the hapkido roundhouse kick angles downward, like a knife hand strike. In taekwondo competition, we call that a Z Kick. So those knife hand strikes in the poomsae, you can substitute an instep looking roundhouse kick, which has a different developmental path than the karate roundhouse kick, which was originally conceived as a horizontal front kick using the ball of the foot.
We hear these concepts told to us, but very few actually think about, research or explore what these principles mean, mainly because I think too many people are filled with the notion that taekwondo is "nothing more than korean karate" and therefore karate principles and ideas are applicable and transferable to taekwondo. In contrast, the taekwondo pioneers acknowledge that taekwondo's roots come from karate, but much work and research has been done since those early days in the 1940s, and taekwondo has evolved from that time. But in order to see that development, one must be willing to look at taekwondo in its own light, and not through rose colored karate glasses.
That is one of the reasons why I told you to forget about all that stuff and keep your arts separate. I can tell you are still struggling with that idea, although you do seem more open to taekwondo than even just a few months ago. In other words, I see growth.
OP
OP
Unfortunately, you've once again taken offense when none was intended. My statement was;
Originally Posted by Kong Soo Do
Kata and forms contain specific movement sequences for a reason.
Kata AND forms have many similar attributes, which is why I mentioned both. And they BOTH contain specific movement sequences for a reason. As the OP, kata AND forms were mentioned for the reason stated. So yes, 'we' are talking about both and their relation specifically to Korean forms.
Yes, they are. Whereas a strike is basically a gross motor skill, locks and throws often require more complex or refined motor skills to accomplish.
What 'friends' are you referring to in your statement?
Specifically what 'rules are you referring to?
You need to work on your civility Glenn. I have addressed you respectfully and I expect the same. Just because a person disagrees with you, or points out where you're in error does not make their view 'narrow' or indicate a lack of experience.
Anyone can do anything they wish with any form. It doesn't make it correct. And as I pointed out above, you can't take a movement sequence in a kata or form and completely interchange it with completely different movements and then claim it is an application of the movement sequence in question. You can replace a straight punch with a 360 degree flying somersault atomic knee smash...but you've altered the form fundamentally and that sequence is no longer part of that form. Therefore it isn't an application of that form.
Once again, that is all wonderful. But, in the movement segment you cited, the strike was with the hand and NOT with the feet. By changing it you are by extension claiming to know better than your senior who you claimed created the form. Since he put in a hand strike at that movement sequence, he meant to demonstrate an application using the hands...not the feet at that juncture. So you can substitute if you like, but it is no longer a movement sequence of the form you cited and therefore is not an application of that movement sequence.
No offense taken. Just stating facts.
Wrong. Here is the original post. Kata is not mentioned.
I don't see the word "kata" in there. Do you? And why would it be? The topic is "Korean forms and applications" in the taekwondo section of MT. We are not talking about kata. If you wanted to talk about kata, then you should have put that in your original post, which you didn't.
Anyone who has studied the korean martial arts or any martial arts really will tell you hand techniques are much easier to learn than kicking.
I apologize for assuming that you have friends.
Your rule wherein taekwondoin cannot substitute a kick for a punch when working "applications".
Pointing out your lack of experience is not uncivil. It is factual.
Why not? You said there are no right or wrong answers. See your original post:
Or is it now your position that there are right and wrong answers?
That might be true if I were substituting a straight punch with a 360 degree flying somersault atomic knee smash, but I am not. I am substituting a straight punch with the rear hand with a rear leg roundhouse kick.
He is not my senior, he is my teacher, which is a different relationship according to the Confucian principles which permeates taekwondo. And I am not claiming to know better than my teacher, because I am following the principles that he taught me, which is again, in taekwondo we do with our feet what others do with their hands.
I have received many positive comments regarding my poomsae examples and its connection to the idea of substituting the feet for hands. I have been told that they never thought of it in that way before and this has opened up a door to a whole new side of taekwondo that they never thought existed. Funny how you are spending so much effort trying to slam that door shut using pieces from your "kata" puzzle. This again goes to your lack of understanding and experience with the korean martial arts.
OP
OP
Kata was mentioned in the quote you used above, which is why I responded as I did. Don't play games Glenn, it bogs down the thread.
We weren't discussing hand vs. kicking skills Glenn. We were discussing striking vs. locks and throws.
This is not my rule, it is merely common sense. If you are going to offer an application for steps and a hand strike then make the application for steps and a hand strike...not a kick. More to the point, don't rearrange the form and then claim you have an application for the original format. An application for a form uses the movement sequence as demonstrated by the form.
Once again, a jab that isn't needed. Because someone doesn't agree with you, or has pointed out where you're in error doesn't mean they are inexperienced. It is not a productive comment, nor is if friendly.
Which has altered the form you cited. It is therefore not an application of the movement sequence you've cited.
Let's see. In KMA the word is forms. In JMA, it's kata. Gosh, seems to me that there's some splitting of incredibly fine hairs here, rather than any actual discussion of the applications found in kata. I mean poomsae. No, I meant tul. No, drat, I meant hyung....
Which isn't what you said at all. You said that joint locks are not more advanced than strikes. Really?
May I remind you of the TOS:
1.3 "Freedom of Speech":
Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited.
So you think that pointing out that a low block is also a hammer fist is going too far, but changing a punch to a kick is ok?
Allow me to once again point you to the TOS:
1.3 "Freedom of Speech":
Posts and comments that are meant to incite conflicts between members or outside parties are strictly prohibited.
Additionally:
1.10.3 No Individual Bashing / Fraud Busting.
It is not our mission to out and expose frauds or decide who "sucks". Such discussions rarely lead anywhere other than to headaches, and lawsuits.
You said in your OP that there were no wrong answers to the question.
His initial post contributed to the topic. You responded and corrected him, he responded and corrected you. You've now responded again and corrected him, each post taking you back to the friction that you said you wished to avoid.
So if there are no wrong answers, according to you, then it really shouldn't matter if the application he cited altered the form in your opinion or not. This is no different from another poster (cannot remember who) saying that the santeul makki in taegeuk paljang contained a throw, and if I recall, you liked the post (I did as well).
Kata was not mentioned, just "any/all Korean forms". A "kata" is not a "Korean form". See your original post below.
Kicking is a form a striking.
I can understand your position if the only experience you had available to you is "kata" based, as opposed to korean martial arts based. But korean martial arts operate under different principles.
You are allowed to do that in taekwondo. Perhaps not in "kata" based arts.
I rather liked that myself, but I do see a difference between 'this turn with those arm movements could be a throw' and 'this arm movement is actually a kick'.
But hey, if there really are no wrong answers, then I vote for the flying triple twisting back flip axe kick with the Dim Mak death touch.
Actually in KMA the words are hyung poomsae and tul. In JMA and OMA it is kata. And not splitting hairs, because the principles the underlie japanese and/or okinawan martial arts are different than those that underlie korean martial arts.
Yes, really. Joint locks are not more advanced that strikes, especially kicking. I practice hapkido and find that hand techniques such as joint locks and throws are much easier to teach, learn and retain than kicking, which many find more advanced. Look at all the people who struggle with the modern competition training methods. If they were so easy to learn, then everyone would be doing them. However such is not the case. Kicking, as a form of striking, is a highly advanced endeavor, although under the right teacher, it can be made much more simple and easy to understand. But for those who think taekwondo is "nothing more than karate" or hapkido is "nothing more than chin na, aikijujutsu or jujutsu", the road will be long and arduous.
No you may not.
Never said pointing out a low block is also a hammer fist is going too far, although no doubt that is what you probably "think" I said. As has been shown in the past, you misread and/or misunderstand a lot of things that I write.
Exactly. And I would think that a more productive approach would be to contribute to the discussion by offering up an application from a Korean form that he studied. I've given out three or more, and I don't even engage in this sort of thing. But I do see the principles that are being expressed in the poomsae, and how they can be applied to kicking applications. But then again, I practice the korean martial arts, and part of that is the knowledge of the principle that we do with our feet what others do with their hands.
Just had a quick flick through this thread and some of the points made and, having studied in much depth the Ch'ang hon patterns from Chon-Ji through to Juche & Ko-dang I feel warrented to comment on this thread, even though the KKW forms are not my area (but I will email Simon O'Neil - author of the best book on applications for these forms and see if he can pop on here to give his opinion also).
Okay, here are my observations from reading through the posts in order:
1. Kata = Patterns = Poomsae = forms and to say they are different is incorrect. Sure they have 'flavours, but they all follow the same mentality and were built on the same structure and premise.
2. I hold Master Weiss in very high regards, not just because he has much intimate knowledge of ITF TKD, but more so that he has proven (to me) that despite being what I`d term an ITF Stalwart (no offence intended), and US disgreeing on many things over the years, he is still open minded, whilst most on that side of the fence refuse to accept applications above and beyond at all - when I saw his videos showing alternative apps I nearly fell off my chair... but I respect his 'willing' + his article raised a much needed opinion/though for other such stalwarts! Sadly, other 'stawarts' are not the same.
3. Just because a Master is high rank or even designed a form it doesnt mean he has studied any other applications above the punch/kick/block type of thing. And I mean no offence here to anyone... on my side, Gen Choi and his pioneers between them made 25 pattens on such a method.. never realising what was actually retained within them. Its a standard practice of making forms, to build them of what you know already and change them to be a bit different! The old masters we ALL hold in high regard will not acknowledge this area at all. Years ago I interviewed a pioneers 9th degree and he told me they learnt whatever application was told to them and in some cases, none at all!
4. The 'spear hand' comment is a interesting point - no student at 7th kup (ITF) will have developed strong enough fingertips for this as a striking technique. Sure, it could be for a soft target.. but more likely, its not a strike at all. In my book, it show it as a basic throw... and basic throws are taught at lower levels!
5. AFAIA no forms/poomsae/patterns have been created with sparring in mind... I know of aTKD instructor that did this, but his forms look nothing like the ITF or KKW forms. Virtually all techniques in forms are for closs quarter combat and those that are 'distance' techniques (such as the double step and flying kick in choong-moo) are for covering 'the gap' in self defence and not sparring related!
6. No offence, but in all my reasearch, I have never heard of substituting and hand technique for a foot technique or vice-versa. And I've never heard of it as a 'key concept'.. I note in that particularly post it says its a 'modern' thing so maybe it is a 'later concept' to aid WTF competition sparrers or something, and indeed, its a novel idea, but as far as the formation of patterns go, I sincerly doubt this was a concept at all! Though I know we are discussing KKW poomsae here, so perhaps Mr O'Neil would be more versed to say on this, as for me it seems a riduculous notion TBH. I agree a high kick could be a low kick etc., but hand techniques use the hand and foot techniques use the foot - period!
7. You do not get 'sparring applictions' in patterns IMO. I mean no offence , but performing two hand technqiues (block/punch) as a parry/kick technique doesnt tranlate to a sparring drill well... it would be best to simply perform a sparring drils, as a drill and thus, eliminate the time between the two technqiues for the benifit of the sparring student!
8. While Im sure all patterns combinations can be adaptable for what you want to teach (to a point), the ITF Saju's being a prime example (even though they are technically not patterns) and are really for 'basics' practice - a pattern/poomsae, taught as tool to train sparrng doesnt really make much sense and they were never 'made' for that purpose, yet do 'hide' SD related purposes - that is an histoical fact!
9.No matter what you take out of a pattern (meaning what sequence of techniques) and what applications you apply to them, when you take out the opponent, the techniques should be pretty similar to 'solo' perfromance - as this is the point of poomsae/patterns - the jigsaw piece should fit the jigsaw and not be forced to fit!
10. kata rules DO apply to KKW poomsae, just as they do ot ch'anh hon forms as they both uses the same foundation as the building blocks!
Apologies also because I didnt watch the video presented at the beginning and I didnt note who exactly said what.
Stuart
Okay, here are my observations from reading through the posts in order:
1. Kata = Patterns = Poomsae = forms and to say they are different is incorrect. Sure they have 'flavours, but they all follow the same mentality and were built on the same structure and premise.
2. I hold Master Weiss in very high regards, not just because he has much intimate knowledge of ITF TKD, but more so that he has proven (to me) that despite being what I`d term an ITF Stalwart (no offence intended), and US disgreeing on many things over the years, he is still open minded, whilst most on that side of the fence refuse to accept applications above and beyond at all - when I saw his videos showing alternative apps I nearly fell off my chair... but I respect his 'willing' + his article raised a much needed opinion/though for other such stalwarts! Sadly, other 'stawarts' are not the same.
3. Just because a Master is high rank or even designed a form it doesnt mean he has studied any other applications above the punch/kick/block type of thing. And I mean no offence here to anyone... on my side, Gen Choi and his pioneers between them made 25 pattens on such a method.. never realising what was actually retained within them. Its a standard practice of making forms, to build them of what you know already and change them to be a bit different! The old masters we ALL hold in high regard will not acknowledge this area at all. Years ago I interviewed a pioneers 9th degree and he told me they learnt whatever application was told to them and in some cases, none at all!
4. The 'spear hand' comment is a interesting point - no student at 7th kup (ITF) will have developed strong enough fingertips for this as a striking technique. Sure, it could be for a soft target.. but more likely, its not a strike at all. In my book, it show it as a basic throw... and basic throws are taught at lower levels!
5. AFAIA no forms/poomsae/patterns have been created with sparring in mind... I know of aTKD instructor that did this, but his forms look nothing like the ITF or KKW forms. Virtually all techniques in forms are for closs quarter combat and those that are 'distance' techniques (such as the double step and flying kick in choong-moo) are for covering 'the gap' in self defence and not sparring related!
6. No offence, but in all my reasearch, I have never heard of substituting and hand technique for a foot technique or vice-versa. And I've never heard of it as a 'key concept'.. I note in that particularly post it says its a 'modern' thing so maybe it is a 'later concept' to aid WTF competition sparrers or something, and indeed, its a novel idea, but as far as the formation of patterns go, I sincerly doubt this was a concept at all! Though I know we are discussing KKW poomsae here, so perhaps Mr O'Neil would be more versed to say on this, as for me it seems a riduculous notion TBH. I agree a high kick could be a low kick etc., but hand techniques use the hand and foot techniques use the foot - period!
7. You do not get 'sparring applictions' in patterns IMO. I mean no offence , but performing two hand technqiues (block/punch) as a parry/kick technique doesnt tranlate to a sparring drill well... it would be best to simply perform a sparring drils, as a drill and thus, eliminate the time between the two technqiues for the benifit of the sparring student!
8. While Im sure all patterns combinations can be adaptable for what you want to teach (to a point), the ITF Saju's being a prime example (even though they are technically not patterns) and are really for 'basics' practice - a pattern/poomsae, taught as tool to train sparrng doesnt really make much sense and they were never 'made' for that purpose, yet do 'hide' SD related purposes - that is an histoical fact!
9.No matter what you take out of a pattern (meaning what sequence of techniques) and what applications you apply to them, when you take out the opponent, the techniques should be pretty similar to 'solo' perfromance - as this is the point of poomsae/patterns - the jigsaw piece should fit the jigsaw and not be forced to fit!
10. kata rules DO apply to KKW poomsae, just as they do ot ch'anh hon forms as they both uses the same foundation as the building blocks!
Apologies also because I didnt watch the video presented at the beginning and I didnt note who exactly said what.
Stuart
Earl Weiss
Senior Master
Really? Keep practicing and maybe you'll get it right.
(Tongue planted firmly in cheek - is there an emoticon for that?)I hope you are not referring to Kukkiwon poomsae. Kukkiwon poomsae has always been closely related to kyorugi, and this is not new.
Gnarlie
Master of Arts
There is a view that kyorugi IS the application of poomsae. In a modern sparring context the link may not be as clear to see as it perhaps once was, as the main kind of sparring we see is the Olympic kind.
In clubs that still practice all the various forms of sparring on the Kukkiwon syllabus, I think the link is probably clearer.
Certainly in my time practicing even just hanbon kyorugi I've seen and effectively used a lot of poomsae motions. In a set sparring situation they can work well. In the semi-free and free sparring situations, striking with the feet is more common. There's a disconnect there, where suddenly, obvious poomsae technique drops out of the equation and we move to only foot striking. I'm not sure if this is due to impracticality of poomsae techniques, or due to the sparring rules limiting the use of hand techniques.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
In clubs that still practice all the various forms of sparring on the Kukkiwon syllabus, I think the link is probably clearer.
Certainly in my time practicing even just hanbon kyorugi I've seen and effectively used a lot of poomsae motions. In a set sparring situation they can work well. In the semi-free and free sparring situations, striking with the feet is more common. There's a disconnect there, where suddenly, obvious poomsae technique drops out of the equation and we move to only foot striking. I'm not sure if this is due to impracticality of poomsae techniques, or due to the sparring rules limiting the use of hand techniques.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2
- Status
Similar threads
